Photokina 2016: Meet the new Olympus 12-100mm F4.0 IS Pro

Photokina 2016: Meet the Olympus 12-100mm F4.0 IS Pro

Alongside the announcement of the new E-M1 II at Photokina, Olympus introduced three new lenses. We got our hands on the latest zoom - the M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-100mm F4 IS Pro. Click through for a closer look.

Comments

If this Oly 12-100/4.0 PRO lives up to the billing as the rest of the PRO Olympus lenses, it will be on my EM-5 II as my all around lens. In fact it might stayed glued to the EM-5 II. For shallow DoF, low light and indoor shooting, my wide primes will take care of those scenarios.

With this lens I can get rid of a couple of lenses in my bag and make room for other stuffs, maybe the EM-1 II :)

A bit pricey. The 12-40 covers most of my travel needs. Throw the Panasonic 20 (or equivalent) in the sack for a backup lens & the TG-4 for occasions when super light weight is the goal, & I've got my kit for Italy this Fall. Re comments on medium format, I'll leave that to you young guys with strong backs. As others point out, perfection has a cost.

Make it Premium 70-300mm f/4-5.6 II for 699€ and it would be great!The old 4/3 70-300mm was better by features than m4/3 75-300mm.- Slightly wider at short end- 1:2 magnification manually focusing at 300mm- 1/3 stops faster than m4/3 model at 300mm.

It just would need to be slightly sharper in both ends than m4/3 70-300mm II is, and this way bump price with hundred euros. And this would as well make up the one slower stop compared to 300mm f/4.

What I want to see is PRO 150-350 or 150-400mm f/4. Don't care for price as long it is zoom and f/4.

Olympus continues to show it's own unique path to excellence. 50 1.2. 12-100 4. 300 4. But still great 17, 25, 45 1.8's, 60 2.8, 75 1.8, etc. For my money NO other manufacturer is doing as much to give enthusiast and certain pro photographers what they're looking for but haven't found with C/N, etc. Love it.

Lol I was being sarcastic of course with all the smileys at the end but honestly as much as equivalency idiots are annoying there is a reason for needing equivalency in the first place.

If someone claims to have a 8mm f2.8 lens we would be like wow ! Sounds good. Then the person will say attached to a 1" sensor camera. Then you know its actually more akin to a 21mm f2.8 lens and its no longer an UWA lens.

So even 12-100mm is rather meaningless unless you know what sensor it is attached to and the appropriate focal length.

Olympus keeps marching ahead. They have a good vision and (now after some corporate corruptions some years ago) a good, ethic.

Imagine how they follow up to the upcoming OMD-1 mk ll a few years from now? These new Zuiko pro lenses will always hold their value. I want them all, now that I see the direction they are taking, improving video on the mark ll. Wait till they figure out out to turn m43 into FF and large format, in the camera and set new ISO records. If anyone can do this it will be Oly, because of their fanatical competitive spirit. (Sony too).

Ah the pipe dream of altered physics that magically appears for m4/3 sensors and turns them into FF sensors. The gains is sensor technology are now slowing down, we are at the limit of what current semiconductors can do, QE is already very high and the latest sensors have not shown much if any improvement in sensor noise, certainly not luminance noise. There will never be any ISO records set by a small sensor unless compared to a small sensor.

So they say, plenty of companies claim fantastical performance for their IS and often it is 1-2 stops less than they claim. Let's wait and see before hyping it. If it works then I agree brilliant system.

The in body IS is so good that I was able to shoot in Turkey's underground cities without flash with the OM-5II. Even people trying to stand still were sometimes blurred because of their motion, but the rocks, etc around them were sharp at 1/8 and even 1/4 second at around 35mm. That is very effective IS which the additional, coupled in lens IS (better for longer focal lengths) is likely to improve.

I neglected to say that I tested it myself. I am not sure if Olympus has come out to say the lens and body combination can achieve 2s handheld at 12mm, but it worked for me and a few other people as well. Even 1s handheld is pretty darn amazing already if you ask me. Maybe I am a little bit impressionable here but a 2s handheld shot that's sharp at any focal length is like breaking the 4 minute mile barrier; at least IMHO ;-)

Also I doubt that 18-135 canon lens will equal the optical quality of the 12-100/4. It also starts at 29mm not 24. Back when I shot Canon the only APS-C lens worth getting was the 15-85 and while it's a little shorter than the Olympus, it's also even heavier. Canon shooters ought to spend just a little more and get a better lens.

No, they won't "blow up," but the focal length range of this lens, but "sonics" has a good point. The compactness aspect of m43 is undermined when an otherwise sweet lens is so large that it almost dwarfs the body.

Since I don't know how to edit or delete my posts, I'll start again, since my previous post made no sense due to cutting and pasting. What I was trying to say was that the lens looks great but is disappointingly big, given the m43 format. Apologies for confusing first sentence earlier.

What do you mean "gone"? It's not "gone" -- you can still buy small MFT lenses. Nothing changes with the availability of this lens. And re this lens, it still makes no sense: a 12-100 f/4 can only be made so small -- are you saying MFT would be better off if this lens didn't exist? It's still smaller than the APSC or FF equivalents (by focal length) ..

No news post yet about the three new lenses Panasonic is apparently developing? (8-18, 12-60, 50-200 all f2.8-4 and PanaLeica branded) That was actually the most interesting M4/3 announcement at Photokina for me, was hoping DPR captured some better photos of the behind-glass prototypes than what I've seen online thus far (so distorted it makes it hard to judge their size).

That 8-18 is particularly appealing to me... Usually I'd be wary of an 'under development' demo like that but the PL100-400 & 25/1.7 didn't take long at all to arrive after Panasonic announced they were under development, under a year I think actually... OTOH the old 150/2.8 that saw a similar announcement years ago was apparently taken out back and buried. Seems this is as close to a roadmap as Pana will provide now.

I was hoping Oly would announce a roadmap for other f1.2 primes, no such luck huh? We already had two 25mm f1.4 and two or three f0.95, 17mm would've faced a lot less competition and possibly more demand, oh well...

If the 8-18 is just a little smaller than the Oly 7-14 and no more expensive it'd be ideal for me, looks like it takes filters so that'd be the perfect step up for me from the 9-18... The range of the two wider 7-14s has always felt a little short and less versatile on the long end. Gotta say I never expected a FOURTH UWA zoom to come out for the system, that many totally solid choices is kinda wild.

Lenstip's German counterpart posted some more details, shockingly the new 12-60 is apparently coming out later this year (two different sealed 12-60s in the same year? only Panasonic...), the 8-18 is slated for early next year (!), and the 50-200 is "under study" (Pana's own labeling, the others are "under development"). My wallet's gonna be hurting early next year between that 8-18 & the Venus 7.5 f2, want both! Hope they turn out good...

8-18mm is very interesting, but it really needs to be pushed under 500€ to be considerable for many as Olympus 9-18mm costs 599€ and is f/4-5.6, while Panasonic is f/2.8-4. So price likely go to 899-1199€ range and is just stupid crazy.

And then comes out of the bushes a 7.5mm f/2 prime with manual focus and likely very good optically, tiny and ultra light. As many has purchased the Samyang 7.5mm f/3.5 fisheye this 7.5mm rectilinear looks to be next hit.

Sigh. No, that's not equivalence. f4 is f4 is f4. f1.2 is f1.2 is f1.2. Always. It's a ratio. So the exposure remains the same, no matter what the focal length or sensor. The sensor/normalised focal length combination with the lens gives a DoF equivalence between different systems, but beyond that, the whole 'equivalence' thing - as promulgated by this site - is innumerate and illiterate. I've not been able to take anything DPR says seriously since they started this whole piece of stupidity.

Technomad: 25mm f/1.2 1/100s @100 ISO on m43 gives you the same image (angle of view, depth of field, exposure, signal/noise estimation) as 50mm f/2.4 1/100s @400 ISO on Full-Frame. That's equivalent.DPreview has been brave enough to put some light :) on this topic with their article. I bless them! (I know it's hard to get the message through, since I found the same equivalence 12 years ago).

And that doesn't mean I consider a cheapy-nifty 50mm f/1.8 on FF to be more compelling than this 25mm f/1.2 on m43. Nor did I found ANY walkaround lens good enough for my needs (including the mighty Canon 28-300L) until - maybe - this 12-100mm.

Good grief. That simply is not true, and anyone expounding that tosh is simply ignorant of the laws of physics, is conflating sensor technology with lens capability and doesn't have the first idea. The ONLY useful equivalence, once you've normalised sensor crop/image circle (the latter being more relevant to different A/R sensors) is DoF, where - in your example - the f1.2/2.4 equivalence is exactly correct. I suppose I've only been a photographer for 48 years, a digital photographer for 21 and a scientist for nearly as long: what do I know?

LL do, certainly - otherwise I wouldn't be a subscriber. But bad ideas, repeated often enough in the the name of getting a unique 'take' are insidious and as distracting as they are disingenuous, that's part of the reason I rarely drop by DPR these days - I'm very disappointed in their egregious promotion of half-baked notions. I can't say that I've seen any such on LL, beyond the aforementioned (ad useful) DoF equivalence. The rest, as I noted, is poor physics and metrically incorrect: they are in effect combining the weight of apples and the colour of oranges into a single measure.

I'm always amazed at how the f4=f4 crowd is more worried about being technically correct than talking about something useful for actually taking pictures. Either include a reference to the real world differences between the two sensors of the cameras that the f4 lenses will be mounted to while screaming f4=f4 - or- just be technically incorrect and say f4=f8. In either case it will be more useful than just walking around like rain man saying f4=f4 and ignoring the differences in the sensors. Sure, technically correct and at the same time utterly useless without the rest of the story.

Yes! The light gathering ability of an f4 lens becuase it is, with the depth of field advantage of a 135 f8 lens at infinity focus. Truely wonderful! ISO can be low and scenic shots will be great.However it does focus much closer than most 135 format 200mm lenses so you can get better tight delth of field if you want it.

the lens is the lens. F4 is F4 But the issue is with the m43 format. Lesser light gathering than larger sensors. I'm a EM1 owner, there is massive IQ difference compared with larger sensor. Check high ISO IQ. It's a pity that Olympus can produce great lens but they limit them selves to m43 mount.

@Brendon1000: okay, right now only 28-200 exists. Set it to f8, set ISO 2EV higher, and you get the result of an (similarly aged) m43 cam with this Oly lens. In every aspect.

I am from m43 side, but I don't understand, why should 'we' go through this again and again.

IMHO, the meaning of this lens is not to beat FF systems in DOF. The meaning is to have a great walk-around lens for those, who thinks that the reach/DOF/Noise/optical performance of it (with an m43 body) is great for some of their use cases, and they appreciate the loss in weight compared to FF systems.

For those, who are not satisfied with it, there are other options in the market for more weight (or less, if this is still too heavy, haha).

You guys just need to stick with full frame sensor cameras if all you can quote and talk about is equivalence. This is a smaller format. Olympus isn't going to make a full frame camera. This is an f4 lens, in this format. Lord, what a bunch of goofs.

They do not go larger only because they do not want to, not because they cannot. They have a market now, but if they land in the APS-C and 35mm world, there would be huge investments and most likely not a large profit because of the competition. All they care is ROI, obviously. Fuji is playing the same game - medium format but no 35mm

@mike99999, no buy a light meter. It will not have sensor size as a setting. Because Iso, shutter speed and aperture will be the same for an exposure nomatter if you use 9x10 camera, tinny 135 sensor camera or the compact 43rds cameras.@ptox sadly most people have no idea what aperature means especially on four thirds cameras. This is way the same junk gets talked about. For exposure issues buy a light meter, sensor has no part in it. Thus f4 is f4. For depth of field issues the doubling people do ONLY APPLIES AT INFINITY!!! Focus point. Thus if a four thirds lens focus closer than a comparable 135 format lens the depth of field on the four third lens will be shallower.

<Massive Facepalm moment>. Every camera system is a balance of characteristics, a compromise of physical and electronic characteristics. I've used film, from half-frame to MF and digital, from iPhone to MF. All have their place - for me, most of the time, M4/3 suits me very well - I'm not a full-time pro but I've never had a client or publisher take issue with the output. What I don't like to see is innumerate comparisons between systems that simply are incorrect.

The same DOF as 24-200/f8.0 at FF. Nothing stupid. It means - absolutely uninteresting in terms of bokeh or work with DOF. As for me, I rare use closed apertures. No any sense to shoot at f8 in focal range from 40 till 200 mm, for example. This zoom offers very limited using.

To you maybe. I never buy zooms to get good bokeh. For that I use prime lenses like my 85mm 1.8 Batis or the 35mm f1.4 Zeiss.

This zoom lens has fantastic range. For the Sony E mount system you do get a 24-240mm lens but that isn't very sharp towards the long end. For Nikon FF you have a 24-120mm f4 which isn't nearly as long as this lens and for Canon also besides the 24-105mm f4 there is no real long zoom.

As long as this lens is very sharp till 200mm I don't see any issues with this very useful focal length. Yes the price is high but after a few months you should get a few sparingly used copies for less.

Great! This is the kind of lens I have been dreaming of for my DSLR. Broad range (starting at useful wideangle), constant aperture, reasonably fast and high quality (the Pro lenses already proved their qualities so I have no doubt this one will be good too). If I was a M4/3 shooter this would be definitely my must-have lens. All the 14-something lenses are too narrow at wideangle; 12-40/2,8 is fast, but a bit limited in range, 12-60/3,5-5,6 is better in range, but too slow and obviously ment as kit lens. 12-100 looks perfect in all aspects.I wish there was similar lens for Pentax, something like 16-135/4. The 18-135mm is too narrow at wideangle and 16-85 is a bit too short at tele, but most importantly, they are both slow variable aperture lenses (f3,5-5,6). Bt Richoh is now concentrating it´s limited fnds on fullframe, so DA lens is not real. Sigma maybe?

I'm using the 12-60 f2.8-4.0 SWD lens as many others are too & the weight & size work out to be similar but this 12-100 lens would have to be so much better for speed with AF, as well as being a larger range.

That was a DSLR lens, for M4/3 users quite unusable. It had nice specs nonetheless and those could work nicely on M4/3. But soon you will have exactly the same lens, since Panasonic announced such lens. Then there will be a great choice of fast (or faster) zoom lenses: 12-40/2,8, 12-60/2,8-4, 12-100/4. Spec-wise the 12-60 looks like the sweet spot (when it reaches the market).

iudex I'm assuming you were replying to my comment & I'll reply accordingly. Yes, the 12-60 SWD lens is an Olympus DSLR lens & works very well on the E-M1 (with MMF-3 adapter) & will work even better on the E-M1 Mk II with 121 cross type PD-AF AF points, but my point is that the 12-100 lens is similar in weight & size (including the MMF-3) & would be fine by me in that regard with the resulting focal range (of 12-100), albeit at f4.0 as that is also compensated with the excellent IS when using Sync IS. Sure the PanaLeica 12-60 should also be a great optional choice too, but in the mean time my 12-60 SWD lens serves me well enough.

I don't think the IBIS in the EM1 mark II is any different from the one in the EM5 mark II. If it is, then maybe just tweaked a little bit?

All the documentation and PR talk about the EM1 mark II is in comparison to the EM1 mark I and how it is improved. But the IBIS was already improved with the second EM5, that's what allowed the hi-res mode then. The improved hi-res mode in the EM1 mark II (3 times faster but not quite hand-held yet) is completely sensor readout and data processing speed improvements as far as I can see. Nothing to do with IBIS.

Steven E- but for many amateurs the smaller size and lower weight are important. Not everybody prints to A2 and above. Even if they do, you only visualize the print from at least 2 feet,in which case image quality is more difficult to discern . Horses for courses.

Horses for courses. And there is a lot of professional work out there done with m43 cameras. A professional knows what the right tools are for each specific job, and there are many areas where m43 delivers not good, but great results.

PedroMZ ... micro 4/3 is a pretty big compromise right out of the gate. This is fine since it will "do the job" for most everyday things for the typical consumer. But there's no getting around the fact that an f/8 equiv zoom is nothing to get excited about. It is seriously limited for shallow DOF, and since it is f/4 on micro 4/3 it is not much use in low light either.So, much to the chagrin of committed micro 4/3 fanboys who can't bear the truth, this lens is "ho hum" as an all-round versatile lens, even though it is a useful focal range. Use it as a vacation lens ... when the light is good ... and you don't need subject isolation.

StevenE, for landscape it is not limited at all. If you want subject separation you get a portrait lens like the 75mm f/1.8 or the 42.5mm f/1.2, or the Voigtlander 42.5mm f/0.95. Never shot a lanscape at f/4. My best lanscapes are at least at f/8

"Use it as a vacation lens ... when the light is good ... and you don't need subject isolation."That is exactly what I used my sold 12-60 for. Vacation, closeup and documentation. So not hohum for me and many others. Ad to that the sealing and the build quality. For the rare shallow shot I will continue to use the Nx 45/1.8. But of course if Olympus would lower the price I would be the last to complain. Anyway, there is now also the announced 12-60/2.8-4 to consider.

ShatteredSky ... no offense, seriously, but all of this can be done better and for roughly the same price with a larger sensor system. For example, a Canon 6D (full frame) with 24-70 f/4L IS, 70-200 f/4L IS, and a 50 f/1.4 or a 35 f/2 IS ... while perhaps not as small as micro 4/3 package, will kill the m4/3 in every way. And there are lighter weight, cheap, alternatives to these zooms that will still outperform the m4/3Even the upcoming EOS-M5 is super light weight and APS-C. There's a tiny 22mm f/2 with excellent IQ, an 11-22mm with IS, and tiny zooms that are lighter, cheaper, and faster than the m4/3 options.Micro 4/3 has some compelling offerings for video, like the Panasonic GH4 / GH5 because they are so well-implemented for video, and you don't want as shallow DOF in video or you can not keep the subject in focus at all when they move.Other than that, larger sensors do everything better.

Well, Steven, you've got a point, but besides the ultimate image quality for me its the other features that count at least as much. Even though I am not a fan of Olympus pricing (one of the reasons I went with Samsung in the meantime). I won't go back to DSLR, the only other contender in mirrorless being Fuji, who are similarly expensive. The only company featuring IBIS, weather sealing, build quality, lens selecting amongst others that are important to me are Olympus and Panasonic at the moment. Image quality is good enough for me, I would never claim it is better or equal to others (I see this with the NX500 vs. the E-PL7).

Professionals continues to buy m4/3 cameras, regardless what 35mm sensors offers in very special situations. Because almost all professionals are not dpreview audience who is lusting for next gen body thinking that it will make them better photographer.

At film era we had less dynamic range, less resolution, more noise, no accurate white balance control etc. And still photographers were able to capture far more important and impressive photographs than most dpreview galleries or competitions holds total.

So you can take your physics and wonder why 362km/h top speed on $ 1'500'000 sports car doesn't matter for 100 million families....

This looks like a great multi purpose lens.. Oh for you bokeh fanboys.. Show me one fine art painting that has extreme bokeh.. They whole bokeh object isolation is so overdone and does not turn your photo into fine art.. Its just another marketing ploy made buy a lens that makes you think your an artist.. I would take DR and HDR over bokah any day of the week.. If you want it photo shop will make your precious Bokah possible ... I do believe it has a much better place in Cinema...

Why all the rants about f4, price or bokeh? You want this lens, you'll buy this lens. It's like with an expensive car. You pay more for something less convenient or less fast -- just because that's the price for owning it. To own a Porsche is probably not reasonable, but maybe it's nicer than owning a Mercedes or a BMW.I think it's great that Olympus offers this lens 😎

Agree 100%. So it is not for everyone. Yes it is pricy, but hopefully with IQ to match. If so, that justifies the price. Some want it faster, but would they be willing to accept the larger and heavier size, not to mention the even higher price?

Olympus/Panasonic make a lot of lenses that I have no interest in. So what? I think it is great that MFT has such a huge selection of lenses to choose from.

It certainly sounds expensive until you start looking at the options out there. The closest thing I could get for my Canon is the 70-200 f/4 USM IS, which lists for about $1100. It is a little less expensive, but a lot less useable than the Olympus.

Hehe, those ranting about Oly PRO lenses never had any of them :)! I've sold all few years ago my DSLR Canon stuff with all the L-pro lenses I had and guess what: my MFT Oly PRO images are as sharp or sharper than I ever had before Oly/MFT. Could be the image stabilization in play as well, but the most important fact to me is: looking through my Lightroom catalog image history all the years back (reaching to the scans 35 years ago, counting hundreds thousands of images), I'm always astonished how well the Oly MFT draws the pictures! A lot of my Oly pictures belong to my best-technical-quality images; all these "equivalence" and "sensor-size" professors/ranters/philosophers are just completely off-topic for me, as I can see the results from this system. They never took good pictures with MFT so they can't compare. The "equivalence" for me is: the coming years will make sensors better, but not the lenses smaller. That's why it's safe to invest into few MFT high end lenses ;-).

I would have been very interested in this lens had it been released 2 years ago. I most likely would have gone for it ahead of the 12-40 and 35-100, assuming it was to deliver the same kind of quality. Two late now as I have the other two. As for the all the limited DoF talk, not everyone thinks shallow DoF is the be all and end all. I stop down to f8 - f11 with FF gear most of the time when light allows. Therefore f4 - f5.6 is fine for me with MFT. It also means I can keep the ISO lower, so the other 'failing' of the smaller sensor doesn't come into play so much. When I want shallow DoF I have the 20 f1.7 and of course the aforementioned FF kit.

m43 forum has the link to the samples from 12-100mm.https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58391252 There are as well some blogs who tested the 12-100mm on fields and the sharpness is excellent from 12mm to 100mm wide open (f4).

When I shoot with FF, I stop as well to f/5.6-11 range by default, most often going to past f/11. With m4/3 I stop down to f/4-5.6 for portraits as I want the nose tip and corner of the eye in focus so that nose, eye lashes and iris is in focus but everything behind the corner of eye can be out of focus, and this is from directly front. So equivalence peepers can ask, what they need to stop their FF lenses to achieve that, as it ain't f/1.2 or f/1.8 or f/2.8 or f/5.6....

The problem with m4/3 for me is that I need to use 2-3 stop ND filter with flashes, as I so easily overexpose otherwise.

It's a little expensive but if it turns out to be decent over such a long range, replacing all the other lenses, it would be worth it. Besides, it says "Pro" so if you buy one you will obviously be a pro.

if Olympus will set more realistic prices for OM-D and this lens, they will be very popular in the world, and also will be enough for millions of customers, including some professionals. But in this dragon-like prices i am not sure... For example, OM-D with 12-100 will be cost about 2300 USD! Its more then Nikon D750 with 24-120 (with real F4!) + 50/1.4G + Yungnou YN685 professional flash! And last set will be FAAAAR better then OM-D system...

The Yen has been up for a while now & not coming down, so it has to reflect in their pricing. I don't expect them to give me one as they have to make a profit.Downunder it is RRP $1799AUD $2199NZDI can see that the E-M1 Mk II with this lens would be a great improvement in performance than my E-M1 & 12-60 (SWD) lens, as well as increasing the focal range.Actually, this lens on my E-M1 may still be worth it.

Why one of most expensive body for not so expensive FF? 24-120 not weather sealed and also has quite a bit different focal length. Size and weight of full setup. I just don't see any point in this comparison. And i would not really consider IQ only a deal breaker anymore. Other features are more important now. Lens line-up, need for razor thin DoF, focus tracking, optical vs evf etc, etc. IQ already more than good enough for most uses.

A 24-200/8 equivalent lens .... ideal for taking pictures, that look like being taken with a compact camera ...Tamron 28-300 takes 4 mm on the wide end and gives 100 mm more on the tele end; is a full frame compatible lens, weighs less, is smaller, cheaper, takes smaller filters and offers lesser DOF - all while being equaly "fast" or "faster" in the 28-200 mm range.

It will be perfect for travel. The Bokeh will not be good but will be perfect for travel. You can always have a prime for Bokeh since the lenses are very tiny. It will be fast enough for indoor shoots. I don't use much of my mft system any more bc I go after details, but I think it will be a useful travel lens for actual users.

Indeed. The 12-100mm looks nice, but if its used as the lens users "keep-on-the-camera"...heck, get a long zoom 1" model and barely lose a stop for less money & less weight: RX10-II/III @ f/2.4+ or FZ1000/2000 @f/2.8+ for example. The RXs, FZs & DLs(?) should perform equally well in the travel & events role.

You'll notice that the RX10 II is the only one to match the same f/8 equivalent aperture as this Olympus lens across the same zoom range. That camera is so "compact" that it only weighs 813g and manages to fit in a small shoulder bag. And that camera didn't happen to have a lens that was lauded as very impressive, even revolutionary, when it was announced did it? Can't be the same one...

@camcom12 - The converse to that argument is that instead of taking the RX10 II, you can take the old E-M5 (or whatever) that you already own, and a 12-100/f4 for barely more weight (less than 200g more) and no more money (12-100/f4 costs slightly less than RX10 II).

...and then you can stick the tiny 85g 20mm/1.7 and a 155g 9-18 ultrawide zoom (or teensy 7.5mm/f3.5 fisheye) into your bag. and cover off all the bases you're missing for a do-it-all kit that doesn't sacrifice quality.

"heck, get a long zoom 1" model and barely lose a stop for less money & less weight: RX10-II/III @ f/2.4+ or FZ1000/2000 @f/2.8+ for example. The RXs, FZs & DLs(?) should perform equally well in the travel & events role."

You're joking. The lenses on those cameras are enormously compromised .. heck, at 24mm, the FZ1000's lens doesn't even cover the entire sensor.

To say they'd perform on par with this lens is a claim nobody can make. Particularly since the quality of this lens hasn't been tested yet.

In all likelihood, it'll be a far better performer throughout its range than any of the RX/FZ options.

@ptox : Fair enough. Since we don't have lab tests yet that would provide a direct comparison, the new conjecture is "...should perform NEARLY as well in the travel & events role". I'd love to have the 12-100mm for my u4/3, but $1300 is up there for casual users as I. Certainly it will be an excellent unit.If I were in the big leagues with a full frame, then $1300 is about right for a 24-200mm/f4. Nikon's 24-120 f/4 is $1000; Sony's FE 24-240/f3.5-6.3 is $900, (and not including all the 28-2xx models for similar money). Hopefully the price will drop in 2017 and everyone will be happy. Of course all of this has little bearing for pros or fully-budgeted enthusiasts.

I think it would weigh and cost more than that. Canon's 24-105 f4 is 12-53 f2 equiv for m43 and costs a lot and weights a lot as well. This is 2x as long which means A LOT more glass so 12-100 f1.8 would be well into 5 figures I'd think even assuming they sold enough to price it reasonably. You're basically asking for the glass of a 24-70 and 70-200 f2.8 jammed together and I can't imagine it'd be simple inside.

The Sony 24-240 is widely regarded as mediocre despite its $1000 price tag and 780g weight. This is a very strong competitor to that lens.

And the Nikon 28-300 is even bigger and heavier than the Sony, just as expensive and mediocre, and trades the wide end for more reach on the long end. So enjoy that, I guess?

As far as the optics go, according to DXO, both the Sony and the Nikon have lower resolution when mounted on their mfg's respective 36MP FF bodies than the Olympus PRO lenses do when mounted on a 16MP body...

Tamron 28-300 takes 4 mm on the wide end and gives 100 mm more on the tele end; is a full frame compatible lens, weighs less, is smaller, cheaper, takes smaller filters and offers lesser DOF - all while being equaly "fast" or "faster" in the 28-200 mm range.

Yeah, and a 16-35 is only 12mm wider on the short end, but 265mm shorter on the tele end. Can't understand why anyone would ever own such a lens, right?

In any case Photo_AK, the non-facetious answer is about 2 things:

1) Build quality and weather-sealing.

2) Image quality. The Tamron 28-300 won't resolve any better than the Olympus no matter what FF body you put it on, and then you'll be carrying a gigantic heavy body for no advantage whatsoever. The flip side of equivalence is "wow, I just wasted all my money on this 1DX for results I could have got from an M4/3 camera?"

@Photo_AK, The problem is that Tamron lens has poor results for Chromatic Aborations, IQ drops pretty dramatically after 100mm and needs to be stopped down for best results - and even it's best results are still "just OK" (according to reviews). You can have your big beasty FF camera with mediocre glass superzoom, I'll keep my E-M10 and throw this great piece of glass on it instead.

People complain so much and so often about so little nowadays, despite having so much to choose from, that it's hard to even keep track sometimes. Some people will just never be happy, no matter what. I'd say there are quite a few folks out there that are either spoiled or enjoy complaining just for the sake of it. I prefer to ignore both kinds, and I assume companies do it as well.

Absolutely! Good old times when we had no choice but to buy what only we could afford, usually just one item of a kind. I would save all my bread for a year, then break the piggy bank and go for the booty. Except for checking on new equipment, however, I also come here to brush up on my dialectical skills. One can see amazing examples of uncovering the other side's hidden assumptions here!

camera makers that listen to the photographers who actually use/shoot with their cameras make better cameras based on real world knowledge ... for example: Olympus selling point is speed, image stabilization etc. then they put a FLIP out screen and explain it because, Video people seem to like it better... NOTE to olympus, people who really do shoot video on a daily basis are not going to use this camera for that with all the other alternatives available .... btw... i'm note a troll, i've shot with olympus for thirty years.... but a flip out screen for street/sport/action Photography is just the dumbest thing i've ever seen from olympus..... i waited for this camera... the wait is over... the search for a new system has began ......

@jim11. who said that you will have to flip the screen to shoot? You can just leave it as fix screen. Some people that want the flip out screen is there for them. I hardly use the flip out screen when I had the FZ 200 but when I need it, it's there. Another good thing about a flip out screen is that you can flip the LCD screen in for extra protection when storing the camera.

Oldman..... i wish i thought of the name.... : } i agree with your points... it's just that i like to shoot in the old Rolleiflex style and having the tilt is perfect for that.... But with all my griping, if the camera is as good as the spec's i will have to adapt...... this old dog will have to learn a new trick..

This lens is actually lighter than the Canon 15-85 IS lens I used to own and with a more useful focal range. Add in the nice close focusing, great build, supposed great IQ, and you have a great lens IMO.

Yes, some more nice Sigmas for mFT would be great, but I guess that the sales volume is just too low for mFT. Designing one lens and adapting it for two mounts of the mass market (CaNikon) is economically much safer than offering specialized lenses for a small niche market.

@BigOne - IS doesn't affect lens speed. His suggestion doesn't make sense.@NetMage - Lens speed and IS are both useful for different purposes. Large apertures are better for focusing in low light conditions and getting faster shutter speeds for lens motion blur. IS is more useful for getting sharper images with longer shutter speeds.

To make a faster lens it needs to be bigger. To make a stabilized lens, it needs to be bigger. It's a trade off, so I'd rather have the glass then all the fancy stabilization tech, keeping it relatively the same size. 0.5 doesn't sound like a lot, but everything has double the impact on micro 4/3.

It would be good to have a source to know how the Zuiko lenses with IS work with not only the EM5/EM1 but the GH5 or the GX80/G85 with their dual IS system. Seems to me like both companies are converging on Dual IS, but that does not necessarily mean they will be compatible in the beginning. Any words?

Not going to happen I think. They are keeping their proprietary tech in house. So If you want the better AF, go Panasonic with LUMIX lenses. If you want better stabilisation, go Olympus. It'd be interesting to see if E-M1 mk2 can deliver better single point AF than Panasonic. The difference would probably be immaterial anyway

FuhTeng, It's not that they don't, but they tend not to publish it. If you look on OLY, they only say Zuiko lenses, Lumix -- lumix. In the early days when only Lumix had IOS, the reasons were clear, but now, that they both seem to have similar technology, the reasons not to open the systems is less clear. I would hope they realize the end user's desires to have this information and not try to bury it or make independent labs verify it.

If it was an internal zoom then it would hurt more because of its constant size. Your reasoning doesn't make sense! The 12-50 lens is a constant length, internal zoom & tends to be more noticeable because of it.

Equivalence folks: yes, in 35mm (36x24mm) format, one could get roughly equivalent FOV and DOF from a 24-200mm, f/8 – but that lens would then need to be used at four times the ISO speed that this one can be used at to get the same shutter speed in the same lighting conditions. Some folks love to ignore the "ISO speed penalty" part of "equivalent lenses".

Sean65, you were correct the first time. It is a 24-200mm F4 lens in 35mm terms, not F8 as Photo_AK said.

The f-stop of a lens refers to the speed of the lens, ie. its light gathering ability, and is defined by the focal length divided by the size of the entrance pupil (physical aperture). It does not refer to depth of field which is determined by 3 factors - focal length, focal distance and physical aperture.

"Timbo101: Sean65, you were correct the first time. It is a 24-200mm F4 lens in 35mm terms, not F8 as Photo_AK said.

The f-stop of a lens refers to the speed of the lens, ie. its light gathering ability, and is defined by the focal length divided by the size of the entrance pupil (physical aperture)."

The latter paragraph is correct, and contradicts the first one. It's a 12-100mm f/4 lens: e.g. at 100mm the maximum entrance pupil is 25mm. A FF lens at 200mm with a 25mm entrance pupil would be 25mm/200mm = f/8.

And speaking on "light gathering ability", it is also exactly the same as with a 24-200mm f/8 lens on a FF camera: the image is 4 times brighter with the 12-100, but it is also 4 times smaller, so total amount of light is the same. (At the end of the day this is the primary reason why FF can have better high-ISO performance: more area = more light with same f number.)

Footmote:I am NOT claiming this isn't a good lens for the 4:3 format. It very likely is.

"A FF lens at 200mm with a 25mm entrance pupil would be 25mm/200mm = f/8." - don't see how this is relevant. A FF lens at 200mm would need a 50mm entrance pupil to be F4 (200mm/50mm = 4). Why did you change the the focal length but not the pupil size? The whole point of f-stop (also known as f-ratio) is it's a ratio - change one number you need to change the other.

The light gathering ability, given as an f-stop, combined with the shutter speed determines the exposure for a given ISO. Film/sensor size is irrelevant to exposure calculations - light meters don't have a switch on them for film/sensor size. The whole "circle of light" thing is a wrong. The image for a FF F4 lens isn't 4 times *brighter*, it is 4 times *bigger* - big difference.

Timbo: I never claimed that a FF f/4 lens would be 4 times brighter. But it lets in 4 times more total light, 4 times the amount of photons.

Final attempt...Take the 12-100mm f/4 lens in question. Connect to it a hypothetical ideal 2X converter that connects it to a FF camera. Now the lens + 2X combination truly is 24-200mm f/8: what the 2X converter does is that it spreads the light over four times the area. The total amount of light doesn't change at all between formats, nor does FoV, DoF, or maximum potential image quality.

It is true that if you'd use ISO 100 on a m43 camera with the 12-100/4, you'd need to use ISO 400 on FF with the new 24-200/8, and this would negate the FF advantage. And that's, ta-dah, exactly what equivalence is about.

And in yet another way:Claiming that the 12-100/4 is equivalent to a 24-200/4 on FF would be same as claiming that an Apple 6 camera with its 4.15mm f/2.2 lens would be equivalent to a 30mm f/2.2 Full Frame lens. It isn't.

If you attach this lens to a FF camera it will still be f/4 however it won’t illuminate the whole sensor. The hypothetical 2x converter you mentioned would need a lens in it to spread the light. Attaching more elements to the lens will make it a different lens so your argument is nonsense.

There is no precedent for such a thing, but if you look at the weight relationship with other f4 vs. f2.8 lenses, it would probably be about double. I certainly would not expect it to be under $2000 at that point, and likely more.

More about gear in this article

Olympus has released a major firmware update for two of its OM-D cameras as well as the PEN-F. It adds support for Profoto's TTL flash system and also brings numerous new features and bug fixes. Read more

For the past few weeks we've been running a series of polls to find out what you - our readers - think of the major product releases of 2016. It's time to announce the winners of the first round of voting! Read more

The end of the year is almost upon us, and as usual, 2016 saw plenty of new cameras and lenses released, among them several excellent zooms. Click through for your chance to vote for your favorite zoom lens of 2016! Vote now

Many cameras today include built-in image stabilization systems, but when it comes to video that's still no substitute for a proper camera stabilization rig. The Ronin-S aims to solve that problem for DSLR and mirrorless camera users, and we think DJI has delivered on that promise.

Latest buying guides

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Professional commercial photographer Moe Lauchert shares an incredible gallery of film photographs he captured on Ilford HP5 with a Nikonos 5 while serving as a diver at NASA's Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory in Houston, Texas.

We've been shooting with a beta version of the Sony a9's upcoming firmware 5.0. While there's much more analysis to come, we can say it makes for a dead simple AF tracking user experience. Take a look at some of our samples.

The Tamron 17-35mm F2.8-4 is a compact and light-weight lens for full-frame Canon and Nikon DSLRs. We took it on grand tour of Seattle's top tourist spots and found it makes a pleasant, albeit wide, walking around lens.

Fujifilm has announced its new GF 100-200mm F5.6 R LM OIS WR tele-zoom lens. The lens, equivalent to 79-158mm when mounted on a GFX camera, has image stabilization (with a claimed 5 stops of shake reduction), a linear AF motor and weather-sealing.

Amongst all of the camera news yesterday, Sony also announced its new Imaging Edge mobile app, which replaces PlayMemories Mobile. Three desktop applications have also been updated, adding support for time-lapse movie creation.

Our intrepid team is in San Diego, for the launch of the new Sony a6400. In this short overview video, Carey, Chris and Jordan talk through the main specifications of the new camera, and what they might mean for photographers and videographers.

The Sony a6400 is the company's new midrange mirrorless camera, whose standout features include an advanced autofocus system, flip-up touchscreen LCD and oversampled 4K footage with Log support. Learn more as we go hands-on with the a6400.

Sony has announced major firmware updates for the a7R III, a7 III and a9. All three cameras gain improved Eye-AF, the ability to recognize and focus on animals' eyes, and timelapse capability. The a9 gets more sophisticated subject tracking.